There’s no really way to sugarcoat this: “Supergirl” is a box office bomb, a big one. Reportedly produced for $170 million, and with a hefty $120 million marketing spend (per Variety), it’s grossed $107 million worldwide to date; with momentum stalled, it likely won't come close to being profitable.
Naturally, no movie studio likes taking a loss. However, the complete audience rejection of “Supergirl” should have alarm bells ringing at Warner Bros. because this is only the second movie from its rebooted DC Universe under the stewardship of James Gunn and Peter Safran. Two movies into the new connected comic book universe, and the pressure is mounting.
“Supergirl’s” much-publicised box office struggles didn’t come as a huge surprise to me. In the words of one Hayley Williams, “I hate to say I told you so,” but I’ve been unconvinced by the DCU from day one. Gunn’s outline for this franchise, launched to take on the MCU juggernaut (granted, an increasingly wounded juggernaut), always looked flawed to me.
Just 12 months on from 2025’s “Superman” setting the scene, in a fundamentally solid, if hardly truly spectacular, fashion, the future of the DCU already looks in question. And I’ve got a horrible inkling that things could get a lot worse before they get better, if they ever do at all.
The wrong movie, at the wrong time
I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say “Supergirl” was not the movie the DCU needed to follow up “Superman.” I personally wasn’t as hot on David Corenswet’s first outing as the Man of Steel as my colleagues (and the internet at large), but even I’ll admit it was a sound big-screen opener for the DCU. The recent follow-up? Well, Supergirl was a clear misstep.
The movie’s critical reception was weak, with 54% on Rotten Tomatoes. Viewers have been kinder, rating it 75% on the same site (though a far cry from “Superman’s” 90% score), but the telling factor isn’t the opinion of those who saw it; it’s how many people didn’t turn out for it. At present it’s on track to rake in less than a quarter of “Superman’s” $643 million gross.
Following up the universe-establishing intro to Supes with a movie about his cousin was not the correct play. Gunn/Safran should have prioritized building out its roster with the biggest DC characters in their arsenal.
DC should have learned from its biggest rival and taken the same tactic Marvel did back in the day. Focusing on the A-list — or what A-listers Marvel retained after selling off characters to Fox and Sony in the '90s — and then bringing in less popular comic figures with the anchoring pillars in place.
The next logical step after “Superman” was a Wonder Woman solo outing, or perhaps a Batman movie. Even if the former is still mired by the stink of the wretched “Wonder Woman 1984," the character has global appeal.
As for Batman, Bruce Wayne is torn between two worlds. Matt Reeves’ “The Batman Part II” is in production, but exists outside the DCU, and a separate Bat film, “The Brave and the Bold,” has been announced but not dated. This will be part of the DCU. A factor that may confuse audiences. Nevertheless, the DCU should be focused on establishing its “Golden Trio” first.
Not to keep taking shots at Supergirl specifically (I'm largely indifferent to the movie), but its overall subpar quality only compounded its issues, and made its placement within the nascent superhero franchise look ill-judged.
James Gunn’s assertion in the spring that audiences don’t have superhero fatigue but rather "mediocre movie fatigue" now looks awkwardly prophetic. By many accounts, “Supergirl” was a mediocre movie, even if Milly Alcock remains a phenomenal casting choice for the eponymous role. And so audiences simply haven’t turned out for the movie in theaters.
Further nailing the coffin shut was the news this week that “Supergirl” will arrive on digital streaming platforms on July 28, just 32 days after its theatrical release date. This surrender caused another Gunn quote to age particularly poorly, after the filmmaker said that future DC movies won’t land on streaming as quickly as “Superman”, which hit PVOD after 35 days.
Clearly, DC Studios is hoping to put the “Supergirl” fiasco behind them and move on with the new DCU as quickly as possible, but I have my doubts the franchise is set up for long-term success.
Running before you can walk
A popular sentiment that has spread online in the wake of “Supergirl” flaming out at the box office is that Gunn (and Safran) are green-lighting “Phase 5 projects in Phase 1.” It's a comparison to the MCU that I find alarmingly apt. I’m almost baffled by some of the movies and TV shows in the pipeline while the universe is still taking its first baby steps.
On the big screen next up at bat is “Clayface” on October 23, an R-rated body horror about Batman’s shape-shifting villain of the same name. Don’t get me wrong, the teaser trailer was excellent, and it could be a “Joker”-style breakout hit, but as the third movie in the DCU, it’s a head-scratching choice and seems unlikely to advance the universe’s core mythology.
Naturally, the DCU has a television component as well. In fact, the first installment in the franchise was the animated “Creature Commandos”, released on HBO Max in December 2024. The show has been renewed for a second season, so I can only assume the ratings weren’t a disaster. And it’ll be followed by “Lanterns” next month on HBO, which has been given a primetime Sunday night slot, suggesting a high degree of faith.
Now let’s talk about the “Peacemaker” in the room. This television spin-off from Gunn’s own “The Suicide Squad" movie (itself very much a box office bomb), which was part of the now-defunct DC Extended Universe, was hamfistedly reconned into the DCU in its lukewarm second season.
This creates another issue for the DCU: Gunn’s refusal to wipe the slate clean. Instead of starting wholly fresh, he’s retained small components of the DCEU, essentially the parts with his fingerprints on them. He's also announced that Viola Davis’ Amanda Waller will get her own show, just to muddy the water further, as she also appeared in 2016’s “Suicide Squad.”
The Hollywood grapevine indicates that shows based on Jimmy Olsen (played by Skyler Gisondo in “Superman”), Mister Terrific (Edi Gathegi), and Gorilla Grodd are in the works alongside movies centered on Swamp Thing, Teen Titans, and a Bane/Deathstroke team-up flick. And it’s here that you get a distinctive whiff of “MCU Phase 5” about the new DCU.
It’s as if the franchise is trying to run before it can walk, greenlighting projects focusing on side-characters and D-list heroes before it’s even got its most iconic players on the board. There’s a reason that “Agatha All Along," "Thunderbolts" and "Echo” didn’t come in Marvel’s initial phase.
Instead, the MCU focused on its core players, brought them together for 2012’s “Avengers,” and then started to expand the universe out from there. The DCU seems to want to skip that building step, desperate to fast-track viewers towards the same universe fatigue Marvel is grappling with now.
Maybe these projects will be excellent. Perhaps several won’t come to fruition (I’d say that’s highly likely). But all the signs point to a DC universe that is failing to build a foundation of goodwill before overloading viewers with an abundance of shows and movies hooked on lesser players.
The future hangs in the balance
In the wake of “Supergirl,” DCU badly needs a win. With “Clayface” feeling more of an experimental offshoot, I think it comes down to two key upcoming projects: “Lanterns” and “Man of Tomorrow.”
The former will introduce the Green Lantern Corps, with Kyle Chandler playing Hal Jordan and Aaron Pierre as John Stewart. I’ve got a good feeling about this one. As noted, it’s been given a prime Sunday night slot on HBO, and isn’t being dumped straight onto HBO Max. Plus, there’s no way it can be worse than the infamous Ryan Reynolds “Green Lantern” film.
On the big screen, “Man of Tomorrow” flies into theaters next summer, reuniting Corenswet’s Clark Kent with Rachel Brosnahan’s Louis Lane, Nicholas Hoult’s Lex Luthor and, yes, Alcock's Zara Zor-El (aka Supergirl). If this “Superman” sequel can recapture some of its predecessor’s popularity, it could stabilize the franchise and claw back general audience interest.
Nevertheless, only a handful of movies/shows into its existence, the DCU looks in a very precarious position. And I can’t help but feel the seeds of potential failure were sown from the very start when the creatives involved neglected to establish a solid foundation before taking riskier swings.
Follow Tom's Guide on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our up-to-date news, analysis, and reviews in your feeds. Subscribe to Tom's Guide on YouTube and follow Tom's Guide Entertainment on TikTok and Instagram. Finally, you can visit our dedicated Tom's Guide Savings Squad hub for expert help on getting the best products for less.
More from Tom's Guide
- Every upcoming DC Universe movie and TV show
- DC's next show is replicating HBO's ultimate crime thriller
- How to watch DC movies in order
